# Another "What If" Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2001, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-what-if-thread/67447 "2001-06-03T19:58:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-what-if-thread/67447/61 "2001-06-10T14:01:45Z")
**Glitch** I spent more than two hours trying to hunt it down. Alas, we’ve lost the most important threads where it all began, as I recall, namely the Atheist Religion I & II threads, although III is still there. By the time we got to III and to other threads on atheist morality, the original dance was mostly done. I also cannot find the famous thread where you took up God’s challenge to be perfectly faithful for seven days. But your theme has always been clear to me. As shown in [AR-III](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22394), you hold that your philosophical metaphysic is “self-will”, thus there is the obvious implication that you will “stick by your guns” despite even objective evidence that you are wrong. Sort of like, I may be wrong, but I yam what I yam. Interestingly, though, after an initial disdainment, upon further review you took a liking to Jesus’ Moral Imperative in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22503&pagenumber=2). Remember **Be Perfect**? 😉 You wrote: > [@](#): > > Lib: On the way home, it occured to me that actually that passage is very valuable in a sense. It instructs the Christian to pursue moral thought! Although this doesn’t guarentee that a person will develop good morals, it is better to pursue it then to stagnate with regards to moral thought. > > The reasoning to come to this is simple enough: > > 1. You are instructed to pursue in yourself God’s perfection. > 2. Since, as a human, by definition flawed you do not have God’s perfection. > 3. Therefore, your interpretation of the three source of God’s nature must be flawed. > 4. Therefore, you are commanded to attempt to bring them closer in line with God’s nature. > > This is a very powerful statement and rule for the Christian! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-what-if-thread/67447/62 "2001-06-10T14:02:57Z")
Well, it _seemed_ like two hours. Obviously, it was only one hour. ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-what-if-thread/67447/63 "2001-06-10T14:30:22Z")
Wow! Thanks for hunting that down. It wasn’t necessary but it is appreciated. That was a good thread. Brings back lots of fond memories. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-what-if-thread/67447/64 "2001-06-10T14:36:54Z")
[http][http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22523[/http]](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22523%5B/http%5D) You mean this one. It was called “Could you believe?” and was started by ARG220. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-what-if-thread/67447/65 "2001-06-10T17:35:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Glitch \* > And I still wouldn’t unless that particular entity is one that will literally make my eternal life a living hell. Interesting. You admit you will only respond to force, and that is also the only way you seem to look at a God. Jesus said lots of things to lots of people. His general purpose in this was _to get people to go to heaven_, or what he thought would be heaven, or whatever. Without the full context of his life and any written words by him himself it is just as much of a snap judgement to strenuously oppose what he says as it is to blindly follow those words. He thought that the quickest way to heaven was to accept the shortcomings of existence without killing people, and to generally be nice and share your happiness with others (whether that be material possessions or good will). This is the _gist_ of what he was saying. What it may have took to get some people to act like that may have been fear preaching; others may have not needed that. Obviously, some people here could only respond to force if it were true; it is then no suprise that this is what they choose to condemn the idea for. ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2001, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-what-if-thread/67447/66 "2001-06-13T23:38:47Z")
Yes, I admit, like any honest person, that they can be motivated by force. In this case, a lot of force. In fact, in my opinion the ultimate in force. The punishment of hell has two very important elements when consider force as motivation. It has both the time and severity components. From a time perspective, it is eternal. It is hard to top that. From a severity perspective, we are told to accept that at a minimum it is excruiatingly hot (molten brimstone and such), and that is will be very torturous (everlasting thirst, hunger, gnashing of teeth, etc). With the resources available to the punisher (God) it is quite reasonable to assume that it will be very effective punishment. However, I am not solely motivated by force. In this case, it is force in conjunction with other factors, not least of which is the absolute 100% proof of God and that God is the one as described in the Bible (which includes the descriptions of this force). > [@](#): > > You admit you will only respond to force, and that is also the only way you seem to look at a God. > [@](#): > > Obviously, some people here could only respond to force if it were true; it is then no suprise that this is what they choose to condemn the idea for. You are quite incorrect, at least with regards to me, that I am motivated by force and that it is this which I also condemn putting Christianity, and perhaps my soul by extension, in some kind of Catch-22. I have no major problem with God using hell as his chosen punishment. I do believe that the length of the punishment shows a lack of sense of justice, but there are much more serious issues with God, in my ethic. When presented with 100% proof positive of His existence the key question becomes “Should I worship Him or not?”. Well, as I already pointed out, His existence as described would be a disappointment since I think the described diety is very unethical from my ethical standpoint. So, a logical question becomes “What happens if I do convert? What happens if I don’t?”. Suddenly, the issue of God’s use of force on the immortal soul becomes paramount. But not before then. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-what-if-thread/67447.md?page=3)